Long Branch Experimental Serial # EX2 ....

I have a friend who is a casual collector, but actually more of a shooter than anything else. He's got a small and varied collection, but he's had this rifle for a very long time. Although he's not a great photographer, he recently sent me some pics of it. After looking them over, I have requested he take off the wood and see if he can get me some pis of the barrel and other markings, if there are any.

I've been told by many, that we have one of the best Lee Enfield research forums on the Internet, so obviously this is a good place to start. I'd like some feedback from the more expert collectors amongst our highly knowledgeable community, as to what you think this is?

It's obviously a No.4 Mk1 profusely marked with with LB stamps throughout the parts, however, without the unique bolt removal notch near the breach, nor the typical "boot" looking safety. It's serial number is stamped EX2 and it appears to have a very early cocking piece and a brass butt plate. I also note the presence of a butt disc, which I've never seen on a Long Branch before, plus the bayonet lugs have been ground off.

Other than that, I can't tell much from the pics as I haven't handled the rifle, although my friend who lives in another city from us, will be making a pilgrimage down to visit and hopefully will be bringing the rifle, so I hope I can get a lot better images for everyone in the future.

http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...nnon%20521.JPG(Click PIC to Enlarge)http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...nnon%20511.JPG

http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...nnon%20512.JPG(Click PIC to Enlarge)http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...nnon%20513.JPG

http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...nnon%20514.JPG(Click PIC to Enlarge)http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...nnon%20515.JPG

http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...nnon%20517.JPG(Click PIC to Enlarge)http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...nnon%20518.JPG

http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...nnon%20519.JPG
(Click PIC to Enlarge)

Any feedback would be welcome…. :thup:

Regards,
Doug

Very interesting.

Here is a rifle that used to be in my collection; a rifle that had completely unknown provenance, but has exactly the same style of serial number as the one in your photos!

My ex-rifle:

- Long Branch Mk1 action dated 1942;
- No standard serial number or inspection marks - no sign of these being linished off;
- Converted SMLE magazine;
- Fabricated triggerguard, including front swivel point;
- Extended butt, factory oil-burnt tiger-stripe finish;
- Front handguards contain spring studs, apparently as accuracy enhancement.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...96923497-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...96923493-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...96923495-1.jpg

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...96923490-1.jpg

(Sadly, the current owner has apparently tried to "restore" it to "standard" condition.....)

Just look at the lovely birch on EX11. It's obviously been set up as a target rifle at some point. That's why the buttstock has been extended, the forend relieved slightly and safety modified for the installation of a PH or AJP target sight. Were they experimental target variants? It's just a wild *** guess but makes sense.

I think that that is the best looking Enfield stock I've ever seen. Beautiful. The relief on the left side of the stock wouldn't all be neccessary for a PH5C I don't think.

Looks like the relief is for a Central plate

I wonder what exactly is 'experimental' about these two rifles. Are they simply very early, pre production 'testing the machinery' prototypes or some trials or just numbered factory samples to prove interchangeability or something similar or maybe factory 'patterns' or what we'd call 'blueprints' in engineering circles.............. Any ideas?

The one shown by Badger has an unusually fine finish on the action parts, but the butt socket doesn't appear to have been scrubbed clean before the application of the "E-X 2". Probably will have to see the various small markings in more detail to hazard any more guesses. The beech stock does seem somehow atypical, though.

Can't make out enough detail in the remaining photos on this computer to go much further at this point. Big screen on the 27th instant- hopefully!

Interesting. Here we have two rifles, hand stamped EX 2 and EX 11.

One would surmise that in 1941, production was geared into getting rifles into the hands of the Troops, and not Target Shooters.

When we think of the "EX", we tend to naturally think of "Experimental". However, I am going to throw a bone out there for thought.

What if the "EX" was to designate "Exhibition"?

During WW2, the Government had to raise funds and have support for the war effort. One of those ways was a travelling Exhibition that moved throughout the Country showing off the products of Canadian War Industry. This not only include Small Arms, but also vehicles, artillery and tanks mounted on and in railway cars. The train would stop at Towns and Villages, and the public could then tour through the cars and look at the larger stuff mounted on the flat cars behind. Of course, the War Bond people would be there to appeal to the Public for War Effort funds.

These Exhibitions would naturally have the showier pieces, with a bit better quality than the average wartime rifle. The "EX" prefix would give immediate identification of these rifles, and it could be that this particular series was not intended to be used on the Battlefield. Also, certain high ranking and influential people were personally presented with a rifle by the Government. Is it possible that the "EX" series was intended for Presentation rifles also? Or could these be "Pattern Room" type rifles, used for reference?

EX-11 has been modified for target work with a butt stock addition and a cut out for a target sight. But, I would be willing to bet a $100 bill that it never left the factory like that.

We learn a bit more about the Lee-Enfields every day. And today, unlike those previous times, there is more interest in History and the keeping of Records. In many cases, most of those old records that did exist have long been destroyed, so much of what we are learning today is a reconstruction of those times.

Exerpt from Newspaper Article in Hamilton, Ontario. Sorry, I could not copy some of the first and last sentences.


visited the Mulberry exhibition
during. the Hamilton showing,
which closed its doors on Saturday
night at 10 o'clock. This brings the
total attendance of -Mulberry visitors
to 275,000 since the opening in
Ottawa. Exhibitions have been
held in Montreal and Toronto, as
well as Ottawa and Hamilton, and
to-day, service personnel travelling
with the exhibit are busying themselves
packing up the model for
shipment to Winnipeg, the next
scheduled city on the itinerary.
At the close of the exhibition
Saturday 'night, Col . V. C. Steer-
Webster, O.S .E ., representative of
the British War Office who is touring
Canada with the exhibit, stated
that Hamiltonians had shown
more- interest in Mulberry than
had any other thus far. "The type
of questions asked," said the
colonel, "was of a high calibre and
showed an extreme interest in the
.

Interesting thread Buffdog. Could they have been built for some type of testing as Peter stated thouigh. I have a No.4, sn. EX2 in caliber 7.62 as done at Enfield. Skennerton thinks it's one of several built to test barrel twists for the L7 GPMG. It's a lovely rifle and has a .303 magazine cleverly modified internally to feed 7.62 rounds.

Charlie is right about the PH 5C and AJP 4/47. They don't foul the forend and I stand corrected. EX11 is definitely shaved for a Central or possibly the PH 5A configured for the No.4. I have one here and got it out to look. I've never installed it for that very reason.

Possibilities would include trials of different woods for stocks as well, since one is in Birch and the other Beech. The first rifle apparently showing that Beech was in very early consideration; if the stock is original and it certainly looks like it is of that vintage, but it shows the kind of wear and tear you would expect on a well-used rifle, not a hardly used "experimental" piece. I don't think the stock is original myself, clearly sanded and refinished not long ago as well.

The EX11 rifle looks more like it might have been fitted up for someone on a left-over action with some carefully selected wood. Other examples like this are known, though usually built on un-numbered MkI* actions. Pity somebody carved up the forend to fit a Central Sight mounting plate!

I would guess that there were early actions made while the machinery was being set up and processes perfected, and they were probably made use of for furniture trials or exhibition or both, and any left overs or returned examples would have found new homes somewhere else in the years following, often via the employees or supervisors, getting restocked in the process.

Note the two shallow, angled machine tool marks on the left hand side of both action bodies, about ~3" ahead of the ejector screw. Pretty distinctive. It surely indicates the example shown by Badger hasn't been "scrubbed clean" of markings. The flats just to the rear of the receiver rings appears to be pretty close in texture, depth and profile, too.

The finish seems distinctive, somehow, as well.

However, the two butt sockets appear quite different in detail- at least on the left side. Oddly, the finish on EX 11 seems to have had more "clean-up" than E-X 2's in this region.

Done gone plumb 'nerd" on y'all , I reckon!:madsmile: Sorry- it does nothing to define their historical import...

ETA:Oy, buffdog, what's the date of the article?

The date was late 1941. I will see if I can find it again. Hamilton Spectator newspaper, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
.

My own view is that the "EX" marks were added some time after the receivers were made: the receivers are well-finished (at least EX11, which I examined in some detail), whereas the EX marks are roughly struck. I'd guess that the receivers were pilot production or gauging samples from the (then) new Long Branch production line, and that they were initially stored or held as reference samples. Later on, they would have provided a convenient pool of top-quality receivers suitable for use as test-beds in trials or experiments.

Does anyone have a photo of the milled flat just behind the barrel reinforce ring LH side on a Long Branch "0L" or "1L" (pre- Mk.1*) series rifle?

That area looks a lot different on 3L2888.

Complete tooling change (Probably cam driven profiler) would be VERY odd, this early on. Toolroom preproduction samples or ??? seem quite likely, as Thunderbox and Peter Laidler surmise above.

Check the MKL under Canada … ;)

1941 No.4 Mk1 Long Branch Rifle (click here)

http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...20_Medium_.JPG(Click PIC to Enlarge)http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...20_Medium_.JPG

http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...20_Medium_.JPG(Click PIC to Enlarge)http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...20_Medium_.JPG


Regards,
Doug

http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...nnon%20512.JPG

http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...20_Medium_.JPG

http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...20_Medium_.JPG

Closer! Guess it's time to photog 3L2888.

Clues, need more clues. Forestocks ought to come off for a look see for inspectors' marks or other distinctive cuts that would be telling.

When we were doing P40 resurrections we had hundreds for factory photos that would interst no one but those building them. Need a machinists eye view of production tools here, too! It's all in the tooling.

(Garands are kind of the same- they changed methods as they gained experience- sometimes pretty dramatically. E.g. Ganged horizontal milling cutters to broaches.)

You can see the same with Daimler Bren gun bodies too JM. Downcut milling against up cut - even when the cutters desperately need changing! I saw one recently where from the dire state of the cut finish, the poor machine must have been crying out for the tool setter to come along

Life would certainly be dull if one knew everything!
Rather than trying to fit the item into a particular pigeon hole, we should consider all relevant information and the photos first, before coming to a conclusion.
In my opinion, the most pertinent posts from Peter Laidler, Thunderbox and Buffdog to Badger's observations.
1. EX (why should it be considered experimental, and then draw features to explain it?). There does not seem to be anything experimental there.
2. EX 11 is BNP (British Nitro Proof) marked, thus exported out of England post-war.
3. EX 2 (and to a lesser extent EX 11) has early features... Mk I action, Mk I (Singer) rearsight, original style safety lever, 'button' cocking piece, magazine & trigger guard.
4. EX 2 does not appear to have Long Branch factory, year & mark designation on the left wall of the action body.
5. Wood on EX 11 is certainly a show grade but there is little doubt that the butt extension & aperture plate mod. were post disposal.
6. EX 2 butt marking disc has chamfered edges, like a presentation or sample specimen.
7. Was the top of the safety lever on EX 11 removed post disposal, or was that original?
8. Early Canadian timber, early brass buttplates.

So what can we assume from the above (there would be more likely if we had closer shots of EX 2)?
a. Early production of both rifles, even earlier apparent for EX 2.
b. EX 11 has been to England and back.
c. More likely exhibition models or show examples than experimentals.
d. Both rifles show post-disposal use, from wear marks on the stock of EX 2 and rifle range swivel, extended butt & plate fitting for EX 11.
e. From the fittings, EX 2 is likely earlier date production than EX 11. Why does the EX prefix necessarily make them from the same batch?

I would offer an opinion from the above that they are not experimental models, rather show or exhibition specimens. From memory, there are one or two EX prefix rifles in the Faris collection although I would need to dig through lots of old notes to see if they are relevant.

One thing is for certain, the more one learns, the more we realise that we don't know.
Ian

"It's a lovely rifle and has a .303 magazine cleverly modified internally to feed 7.62 rounds. "

Brian do you have a picture or description. Slightly off topic but very interesting all the same.

I have a question about the "oil-burnt" finish on Thunderbox's rifle EX11. How is this finish done? I've tried searching it on the internet and all I've found is burnt oil finishes for metal, not wood. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers!

Does the Foreend have a serial number matching?

The reason I ask is that it looks like Savage wood to me. I have a Savage I think it is 1943 and the wood is pretty much the same.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC00011-1.jpg

The brightness of the stripes do not come through in these digital pictureshttps://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSC00007-1.jpg

img.photobucket.com/albums/v11/terryinvictoria/DSC00005.jpg
Regards
Terry

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunderbox

Very interesting.

Here is a rifle that used to be in my collection; a rifle that had completely unknown provenance, but has exactly the same style of serial number as the one in your photos!

My ex-rifle:

- Long Branch Mk1 action dated 1942;
- No standard serial number or inspection marks - no sign of these being linished off;
- Converted SMLE magazine;
- Fabricated triggerguard, including front swivel point;
- Extended butt, factory oil-burnt tiger-stripe finish;
- Front handguards contain spring studs, apparently as accuracy enhancement.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...96923490-1.jpg

(Sadly, the current owner has apparently tried to "restore" it to "standard" condition.....)

---

Asleep at the switch there I was: notice the sling swivel on the guard as per the Model C Trials Rifles. That would suggest a very early piece indeed. Pre-production as others have mentioned.

Or the guard might have been an orphan used up later, but that seems less likely.

Although since the rifle was used for target work at some point, perhaps these "EX" rifles remained at the factory and were later "lunch-boxed" or made into "presentation pieces", either for the staff(!) or others.

Since the wood was obviously hand-selected by someone with access to a lot of it, and is not of the MkI type, that suggests a rifle built up, or at least restocked, at the factory later.

Interesting that some other "EX" rifles don't have that sling swivel on the guard.

I saw two No.4's in a UK auction with that type (C Pattern) trigger guard! Was allowed to investigate further and found both were Long Branch Rifles and had the sling swivels brazed on to early Savage Guards, the old wire loop was still visable on the top of the guard. Would C Pattern guards be converted B Pattern or new? Both rifles made there way back from South Africa to the UK.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XL39E1

I saw two No.4's in a UK auction with that type (C Pattern) trigger guard! Was allowed to investigate further and found both were Long Branch Rifles and had the sling swivels brazed on to early Savage Guards, the old wire loop was still visable on the top of the guard. Would C Pattern guards be converted B Pattern or new? Both rifles made there way back from South Africa to the UK.

---

Interesting, and hard to say if those sling swivels were brazed on at Long Branch or somewhere else. It wouldn't make much sense for Savage to have done it, unless they found that easier than making them one piece with the guard, the way RSAF(E) did.

Were the LB rifles very early ones?

So many odds and ends must have been lying around these factories when production ended and who knows where it all went. In the case of LB no doubt a lot of it was sitting around into the 50s and even 60s.

One was a Savage (12Cxxxx ) and one was a 43 BSA!!!

---------- Post added at 08:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:55 PM ----------

Just checked my info on these! definatly not L.B. i do have a pic somewhere of the triggerguard, will try to post tomorow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XL39E1

One was a Savage (12Cxxxx ) and one was a 43 BSA!!!

---------- Post added at 08:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:55 PM ----------

Just checked my info on these! definatly not L.B. i do have a pic somewhere of the triggerguard, will try to post tomorow

---

Did you ever find that photo?

http://www.byswordandmusket.co.uk/fa...gbranch-f-845/

:move eek::move eek: £3600!

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...96923490-1.jpg

Quote:

---

The woodwork has had some time spent upon it in forming the tiger-stripe pattern but it has been done perfectly.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Surpmil

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...96923490-1.jpg

---

Ammonia

EX 11 is set up as a standard Aussie style range rifle No1/No4. The extra sling swivel in front on the trigger guard from the horse days ( No1) or on the main screw depending what you had or needed for the range type slings used. The tiger striping was fairly common addiction on light coloured furniture broke up reflection.

The Central sight was and I believe still is very popular here in Canada so there would be nothing unusual about seeing that plate fitted to a rifle here.

Years ago I had some bases made up for the Central that did not require D&T and mounted only on the receiver side wall, rather than the guard screw. I wonder if there would be any market for something like that today.

He has it up again (still?) for £ 9750

Youtube video to go along with it as well:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-q9...SwordandMusket

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roy W

http://www.byswordandmusket.co.uk/fa...gbranch-f-845/

:move eek::move eek: £3600!

---

I have one of these rifles that I have converted to a sniper rifle Knockoff never realized it was anything special. I did write in once and question the fact that the whole trigger group is stamped with a tiny T ? it has the low-slung fore-stock and a semi-machined slot for a cut-off but it was never finished, Almost identical to the one in the picture, it's a LongBranch 1943 No4 Mk1* # 30L ****, All parts are Longbranch including Hinged front band, but I have a replica on at present and original on the Box. I've owned it for a long time, a regular shooter with miss matched longBranch Bolt Dilled out type with the original Button firing Knob. Sight is now ground off and replica parts to finish. I modified it further for accuracy polishing certain parts. Shoots very well always did, think I paid $100 for it years ago. 5 groove Barrel. I assume it's one of many that got finished off.

---------- Post added at 07:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:00 PM ----------

I have one of these rifles that I have converted to a sniper rifle Knockoff never realized it was anything special. I did write in once and question the fact that the whole trigger group is stamped with a tiny T ? it has the low-slung fore-stock and a semi-machined slot for a cut-off but it was never finished, Almost identical to the one in the picture, it's a LongBranch 1943 No4 Mk1* # 30L ****, All parts are Longbranch including Hinged front band, but I have a replica on at present and original on the Box. I've owned it for a long time, a regular shooter with miss matched longBranch Bolt Dilled out type with the original Button firing Knob. Sight is now ground off and replica parts to finish. I modified it further for accuracy polishing certain parts. Shoots very well always did, think I paid $100 for it years ago. 5 groove Barrel. I assume it's one of many that got finished off.

Is the original 0L or 1L serial number still on your Mk.I Long Branch bolt Harlton?

Hi Edward, Yes I believe so, There's a little Tiny 's' first, closest to the top corner near the bolt Body, then the number overstamped or a squiggled inverted 7 overstamped by the number 8 or letter B to form LB which is stamped in fairly small to form. The LB formed followed by the same number size and set, properly stamped 1569. so spaced like this: s
1 lB 1569. Has approval on top of the Bolt's face and something stamped inside the hollow of the lightened long lug, also an lb size 1 head, for a very tight fit, the head has to be forced slightly into the 12 O'Clock position for installation, all nicely fitted and done, but I've since polished the inside a Firing pin, and a little on the sides of the Longbranch made flanged Bolt cocking piece. Hence, the lB is now very faint just make it out with a loupe. It was all as slick as possible to start with, that same hand-formed T marked into the trigger set and receiver with trigger contact pieces and bolt interfaces. It didn't take much the Trigger is the lined early style for grip like WW1 Triggers, also having the same very small s on it not like a savage marking and the hand struck with the same T. When I blued the Bolt faces they were very well matched I just gave them a further little light lap and they are both now very even and shiny. I always found that trigger set and pull very strange as it seemed good, and not maybe just bits of rifle put together. I have a from Brand new Longbranch series 51lb from new, and this rifle was always better. It doesn't photograph well, but I'm a camera idiot too, I'll try again when I have better light, and I'll try and find the old photos but they may have gone. I hope that means something to you. Regards Ian

So Guys, is there something I missed about this rifle or was it just a pile of bits as agreed when I purchased it, I've had it a long time and paid about $150 for it total with some missing parts. Do the small T's on everything signify anything? I've ruined it now but I'd like to know please, one peculiar thing about it is the receiver is also marked with the same T, Barrel too, Has a pinkish hue to it seems like defective blueing to me But I left it. thanks Ian?